Lott v. Saulters


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2012-IA-01401-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2012-IA-01401-SCT
Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-23-2014
Opinion Author: Chandler, J.
Holding: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Additional Case Information: Topic: Real property - Warranty deed - Ownership interest - Section 89-5-1 - Recording of deed - Notice - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-7 - Section 15-1-9 - Action to recover land - Remainderman - Tolling of statute of limitations - Damages
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Kitchens, Pierce and King, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Dickinson, P.J., With Separate Written Opinion
Dissent Joined By : Randolph, P.J., Lamar and Coleman, JJ.
Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-14-2012
Appealed from: COVINGTON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
Judge: DAVID SHOEMAKE
Disposition: The chancellor denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that Ralph's valid claims are not time-barred.
Case Number: 2012-002
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Brenda S. Lott and Frances H. Saulters




 EUGENE COURSEY TULLOS



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: Ralph D. Saulters AUDRY REGNAL BLACKLEDGE  
    Synopsis provided by:

    If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
    hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.
    Topic: Real property - Warranty deed - Ownership interest - Section 89-5-1 - Recording of deed - Notice - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-7 - Section 15-1-9 - Action to recover land - Remainderman - Tolling of statute of limitations - Damages
    Summary of the Facts: Frances Saulters is the mother of Ralph Saulters and Brenda Lott. Ralph filed a complaint, alleging Frances conveyed real property via a warranty deed to Ralph, reserving for herself a life estate. Four months later, Frances executed a second warranty deed which conveyed the exact same property to Brenda, once again reserving for herself a life estate. Ralph alleges that Brenda had actual knowledge of Ralph’s deed and “understood that Ralph was going to have his instrument recorded.” The same day the second warranty deed was executed, Ralph and Brenda each recorded their respective deeds. Brenda beat Ralph to the courthouse by forty-five minutes. More than ten years later, Ralph filed his complaint to set aside the deed to Brenda, to remove cloud and quiet title, to confirm title, for failure of covenants of warranty of deed, and other relief. Ralph also seeks actual and punitive damages from Frances and Brenda. Brenda and Frances moved to dismiss the action. The chancellor denied the motion. Brenda and Frances filed an interlocutory appeal.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Ownership interest Under the facts presented in this case, Ralph’s deed takes priority over Brenda’s deed, despite the fact that Brenda recorded her deed first. Pursuant to section 89-5-1, a grantee has a superior claim to the land when he takes a deed without notice of a prior competing deed and then records that deed first. However, a grantee takes the land subject to a prior unrecorded deed from his grantor of which he has actual notice. Thus, Ralph has a valid ownership interest in the land. Issue 2: Statute of limitations Brenda and Frances argue that Ralph’s claim for cancellation of Brenda’s deed falls under the general, three-year statute of limitations because it alleges fraud. Actions to recover land are subject to the ten-year statute of limitations found in sections 15-1-7 and 15-1-9. Where a plaintiff alleging a possessory interest in the land brings an action to clear title or to recover land obtained by fraudulent conveyance, that action is governed by the ten-year statute of limitations. Section 15-1-9 states that actions to recover land based on fraud will have a ten-year statute of limitations. Our Legislature has not created a law shortening the time to bring an action to recover a fraudulent conveyance. Therefore, the action in this case is subject to the ten-year statute of limitations. Brenda and Frances argue that, even if the ten-year statute of limitations applies, it has expired because Ralph waited more than ten years after Brenda recorded her competing deed to file his complaint. But, because Ralph is a remainderman who does not yet have the present right to possess the property, the statute of limitations has not yet begun to run on his cause of action to clear title to his future interest. In the context of future interests, a present cause of action to clear title does not trigger the ten-year limitations period to run against a remainderman until the termination of the precedent estate. Therefore, even though Ralph’s cause of action already has accrued, the statute is tolled until Ralph obtains a present right of possession at the termination of the life estate. Issue 3: Damages Ralph also requests damages for the breach of warranty deed and punitive damages for all of the other wrongful conduct alleged in the complaint, including fraud, detrimental reliance, gross negligence, duress and undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, bad faith, and conversion. Each of these claims falls under the three-year statute of limitations contained in section 15-1-49. Therefore, these claims are barred as untimely.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court